Most GRVs are the product of inattentiveness. I don't think ascribing them to some underlying character flaw makes any sense.

We upgrade because we want to reinforce the message that paying attention to game rules is important. We are never doing it as punishment. Even when it's a game loss.

Originally posted by Toby Hazes:

Why is that draconic? Players are not supposed to have “committed two completely unrelated GRVs” at all. The GL is not for this one GVR but for all those GVRs combined.

What I meant to say is that the player will most likely see that he just got a GL for some quite obscure rule (from his perspective) and might see this as a rather draconic “punishment” (still player perspective). So I think we as judges should explain very well why we are handing out this penalty in a situation like this.

Paul Smith
If you're playing at Comepetive REL, you're on 2 GRV warnings, and a situation happens in which you don't know what the correct outcome is, and you are arrogant or naive enough to decide to press ahead as if you do know what the correct outcome is without checking with a judge, and somebody notices your mistake and calls a judge about it, then yes, I think a GL at that point is totally reasonable.

I don't think the player in a situation like this actually realizes something could go wrong. So there is no reason for him to ask a judge.

Which is why in my announcements to all players at every event includes something like “If you are not sure how something works, call a judge.”

Originally posted by Nick Rutkowski:

Which is why in my announcements to all players at every event includes something like “If you are not sure how something works, call a judge.”

Many players still think that it's kind of offensive and/or embarrassing if they call a judge because they don't know how something works or because they disagree with their opponent. That is something we (the judges) still have to work on. Many players don't know that we really want them to get us involved whenever something is unclear, regardless of what has been said in the opening announcements.

Also, in examples like these, there is no “not being sure”. The correct option (that a creature might live because of Gavony Ironwright) simply doesn't even cross their mind. They simply think they're sure so no reason to call a judge.

Maybe an exemple with a 2/3 tarmogoyf (land-creature) put in graveyard by a Lightning Bolt

This case happen in legacy

And i think it can be an easy way to cheat for players if their opponent don't know how it works

I see no reason to deviate just because a rules interaction is difficult. The players have the option to get help for things like that. If I were the head judge, I might consider deviating on the upgrade only if a rule was extremely counter-intuitive and obscure, like 401.5.

401.5. If a spell or ability causes a card to be drawn while another spell is being cast, the drawn card is kept face down until that spell becomes cast (see rule 601.2h). While face down, it's considered to have no characteristics. The same is true with relation to another ability being activated. If an effect allows or instructs a player to reveal the card as it's being drawn, it's revealed after the spell becomes cast or the ability becomes activated.

I wouldn't say that even 401.5 is difficult/obscure, in that very few decks/cards will cause it to come up, and if you're playing something that does, then you should be familiar with it. Players don't have to know all the obscure rules, but they should know the ones that pertain to their deck. Expecting players to know how their cards work is not unreasonable.

Edited James Winward-Stuart (Nov. 24, 2013 02:45:58 AM)

The Melira, Sylvok Outcast/Inkmoth Nexus interaction would be an example of something I'm willing to not upgrade on. Especially as it's about cards in different players' decks so the “know your own deck” doesn't even apply.

Edited Toby Hazes (Nov. 27, 2013 03:49:09 PM)

I'm going to jump in here and agree with those who has said that it isn't
about wierd or tricky interactions. If you don't understand how two cards
work together and don't call a judge and get it wrong then the blame is
squarely on you. We as judges should not be basing our decisions on how
“hard” or “obscure” a rule feels to us. If they broke the rules of the
game, they broke the rules of the game and a GRV is warranted. As Scott
and Josh both said above, The IPG needs to be applied evenly and
consistently to be an effective piece of policy.

Its also not about upgrading this particular GRV. We are upgrading since
they have gotten 3 today. If their first two GRVs were something “simple”
and their last one was “hard”, why should we treat that different that
someone who's first two GRV's were something “hard' and the last one was
something ”simple"?


On Wed, Nov 27, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Patrick Cool <
forum-7158-803f@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

> I'm going to jump in here and agree with those who has said that it isn't
> about wierd or tricky interactions. If you don't understand how two cards
> work together and don't call a judge and get it wrong then the blame is
> squarely on you. We as judges should not be basing our decisions on how
> “hard” or “obscure” a rule feels to us. If they broke the rules of the
> game, they broke the rules of the game and a GRV is warranted. As Scott
> and Josh both said above, The IPG needs to be applied evenly and
> consistently to be an effective piece of policy.
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this e-email. Or
> view and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/42987/
>
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/7158/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/7158/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/profiles/edit
>
>


–
Thanks,
Travis Coffman

Of course the upgrade will be based on all the 3 GRVs not just the last one.

It's is a part of our philosophy that a deeper understanding of the rules should afford an advantage to a player. That's (part of) why we penalize GRVs.

I agree with my fellow judges above and I like how Richard said it

“I don't see a need to make any difference between breaking a rule that is
easy to understand and one that is more difficult.
When you break a rule, you commit an infraction and deserve a penalty.”